Controlled Demolitions in Action

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


visual evidence of thermite reactions


You can identify thermite on sight, through a photo? Wow, we'll never need to analyse any substance ever again, we'll just ask you.

Well, a visual is all that we ever had a chance to get, considering the fact that FEMA and CDI came in immediately and took all the damn evidence away.




posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Don't just read the bolded part, read the whole thing, that is never their arguement. point 1 covers:
1. Doesn't look like any demo ever done
2. They cover the how the charges couldn't have been planted, and wouldn't survive the impact
3. They cover the prep work needed, for which there is no evidence


1. So? They ASSUME all CD happens the same. This is a special case.
2. They assume WAY too much and show no calculations for the amount of HE.
3. Again, all based on HE assumptions which are not documented. Just their opinion.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
A pdf is a type of file format, it seems to be commonly used by professionals.





Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Patents mean nothing, you can patent anything, and from what i've heard, they are bulky, and can't penetrate far, only an inch or 2.


From what you have heard??
WOW... Now I am REALLY CONVINCED!!! Read the patent... Arguing with you is an act in futility.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
This is not a peer reviewed work, it was something he wrote on his own time to counter CTers.


Then he should have included data, photos, referrences, citations, seiemic records, etc. as this is THE BASIS for his GARBAGE OP/ED piece.

Steven Jones is CONSTANTLY under fire for his PEER REVIEW METHODS. This paper is UNACCEPTABLE as it has not been peer reviewed and for the reasons outlined above.

IT is NOT SCIENCE. It is opinion at best.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
You want a source that was never give? Fine.
911myths.com...
There's a picture


Sorry... I meant a real source. Not some "debunker" site.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I'm sorry, you expect people to be able to identify the type of metal on sight.


What other type of columns were the towers constructed of that look like a steel cloumn?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Meaningless, unless you can show that because of that he's lying somehow.


He has to prove his case... which he has not done for the reasons outlined TWICE above. It is to him to make his case if he is going to 'publish' a 'paper'. It needs no 'debunking' as it is a simple OP/ED piece and NOT a scientific paper.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What would this prove, we wouldn't be able to read it properly, we don't know how.


If you are going to present an ASSUMPTION based on DATA, you typically PRESENT THE DATA.


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Because they're private, they can't present them legally, and he wouldn't release the names for privacy reasons.


Then they should not be used as a basis for his argument... I have pictures of UFOs... SO THERE... TAKE THAT UFOs EXIST! (but I cannot show you the photos) That is how silly your argument sounds. Like a child saying... "I know but I'm not telling."


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Again, not a peer reviewed paper.


Citations are not limited to peer reviewed papers. Do you know what a citation is?


Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Why would they bother, you guys aren't that important to them.


Obviously important enough to write as you state he "wrote it to counter CTers". Next time he may want to include some form of actual data or SCIENCE then maybe anyone will care about his opinion based drivel.

Anyhoo... In the future do not expect a lot of typing from me as i find your "arguments" to be generally without basis, merit, data, facts or science and also see them as quite trite. I am sure I am not alone in these feelings.

Good day.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   


Well, a visual is all that we ever had a chance to get, considering the fact that FEMA and CDI came in immediately and took all the damn evidence away.


OK, so we agree this isn't any evidence of this, what's your proof that they removed the evidence?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   


1. So? They ASSUME all CD happens the same. This is a special case.


NO, they don't assume this, they are saying it doesn't LOOK the one, that is all.


2. They assume WAY too much and show no calculations for the amount of HE.


Why would he have to show how much HE, if it can't survive the impact and/or fires, it's useless.


3. Again, all based on HE assumptions which are not documented. Just their opinion.


Because that's what is used to demolish building, Do you know of any non HE demolitions tools that could suvive the impact and fires?

What's so funny about the pdf's?



From what you have heard?? WOW... Now I am REALLY CONVINCED!!! Read the patent... Arguing with you is an act in futility.


Again, patents mean nothing, there is even a patent on a method of making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Remember, it's your claim, you have to prove the device can acually do this.

PS, you ask me to read the paten, but WHERE'S THE LINK?



Then he should have included data, photos, referrences, citations, seiemic records, etc. as this is THE BASIS for his GARBAGE OP/ED piece.


Then find an expert that disaggrees, until then domeone that talked to real experts carries far more weight than anything you say.


Sorry... I meant a real source. Not some "debunker" site.


WOW, you never even look at what I linked. You wouldn't look at the photo of what you asked for, just because of the site it's on.


What other type of columns were the towers constructed of that look like a steel cloumn?


I don't know what it is, because you are just making up stuff, where is the picture? How can you tell what type of metal it is?


He has to prove his case... which he has not done for the reasons outlined TWICE above. It is to him to make his case if he is going to 'publish' a 'paper'. It needs no 'debunking' as it is a simple OP/ED piece and NOT a scientific paper.


He did show his case, you haven't shown how he's wrong, you've used strawmen, claimed that it's invalid because his company has a government contract, but shown no expert say he's wrong. It was never claimed to be scientific, but it is on implosions world's website, endorsed by experts at least.



If you are going to present an ASSUMPTION based on DATA, you typically PRESENT THE DATA.


Again, it's probably something he did in his free time, not for submission to any peer review process.


Then they should not be used as a basis for his argument... I have pictures of UFOs... SO THERE... TAKE THAT UFOs EXIST! (but I cannot show you the photos) That is how silly your argument sounds. Like a child saying... "I know but I'm not telling."


So, you want him to illegally release private property, or give people names out for harrassment?


Citations are not limited to peer reviewed papers. Do you know what a citation is?


Yes, but why should he bother, you aren't important to them.



Obviously important enough to write as you state he "wrote it to counter CTers". Next time he may want to include some form of actual data or SCIENCE then maybe anyone will care about his opinion based drivel.


You have yet to counter anythiing he wrote, where is it wrong?



Anyhoo... In the future do not expect a lot of typing from me as i find your "arguments" to be generally without basis, merit, data, facts or science and also see them as quite trite. I am sure I am not alone in these feelings.


What is there to refute, your personal opinion, and strawmen?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Patents mean nothing, you can patent anything...


Not true, patents are actualy dificult to obtain and the product being patented has to have a practical use.


Patenting is a time consuming process which can take as long as five years to complete. The process of getting a patent involves filing an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, paying the applicable fees, and responding to office actions.


And they're expensive. Most ppl wouldn't spend a lot to patent something that was worthless.


At the bare minimum going through entire patent process, including attorney’s fees, can take an estimated $1000-$4000 for a simple mechanical or electrical invention, or an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 for a very complex computer or high-tech related product.


www.legalmatch.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy



Well, a visual is all that we ever had a chance to get, considering the fact that FEMA and CDI came in immediately and took all the damn evidence away.


OK, so we agree this isn't any evidence of this, what's your proof that they removed the evidence?



That's the funniest thing, I've heard all day.


OK, BRAINIAC. Think. Planes hit two towers, and they collapse. Immediately after they collapse, dump trucks come in to take away debris, and the cleanup begins. The towers, were a crime scene, of an immense terrorist attack. A thorough investigation of the wreckage should have been done, but instead, it was all taken away.


Do I really need to bring up pictures and documents showing dump trucks hauling away the wreckage of the WTC? Wreckage and rubble is evidence.



I'm still laughing at your comments.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I suggest EVERYONE check this out.


This forum WILL conduct itself by ATS standards.

Red Flags to follow.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   


OK, BRAINIAC. Think. Planes hit two towers, and they collapse. Immediately after they collapse, dump trucks come in to take away debris, and the cleanup begins. The towers, were a crime scene, of an immense terrorist attack. A thorough investigation of the wreckage should have been done, but instead, it was all taken away.


I asked for proof, this is just repeating your claim.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   


Not true, patents are actualy dificult to obtain and the product being patented has to have a practical use.


No, they don't.
www.archvillain.com...


And they're expensive. Most ppl wouldn't spend a lot to patent something that was worthless.


Most people wouldn't patent these things, true. How expensive is a patent for a non technical invention?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
This diversion into the american patent system doesn't solve anything, if you want to show that the devices could have cut through the vertical columns, then YOU need to show that they can. Your claim, your burden of proof.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
No, they don't.
Most people wouldn't patent these things, true. How expensive is a patent for a non technical invention?


OK maybe 'practical application' wasn't the best wording.

But if a product has a patent it has to do what the patent says it does, however silly it may seem to you.

If you had read my link, or even my quote, you would have the answer to your last question.


So in other words your original claim is inncorect, so your argument fails.


In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,”

www.uspto.gov...

[edit on 17/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
dble post sry

[edit on 17/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Just scanning this thread..but, you have the problem compounded by not only rigging charges, but now you have to clamp on some sort of bracket?? That just makes it more implausible.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   


But if a product has a patent it has to do what the patent says it does, however silly it may seem to you.


I don't find that silly, but the process is not perfect, in the end it will be a human that decides, and they might not have scientific knowledge neccessary for the patent they're reviewing. Patents for perpetual motion machines have been granted, even though they're impossible according to physics as we know it.



Patents such as the motionless generator illustrate that a patent is not a certification that a device will work. Examiners assess patent applications according to four criteria: novelty, usefulness, nonobviousness and enablement, the last of which means that the patent must disclose how to construct the patented device. A device that does not work as claimed should be rejected for failing usefulness and enablement, but initially the burden of disproof is on the examiner. Statements of fact in a patent application are presumed true unless a good reason for doubt is found. The device has only to be " more likely than not" to work.


Patents aren't proof that the device works.
inventors.about.com...://www.sciam.com/article.cfm%3FarticleID=00034DF5%2D683F%2D1D7E%2D90FB809EC5880000



At the bare minimum going through entire patent process, including attorney’s fees, can take an estimated $1000-$4000 for a simple mechanical or electrical invention, or an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 for a very complex computer or high-tech related product.


Obviously there are people that will still do it, even with the cost. These are still mechanical and electronic devices, but it's not really related to the subject at hand.

As interesting as the sorry state of the US patent office is, it is a distraction to the main debate. To show the device could have been used, you have to show they can do what you claim they can.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Well I'd rather trust the actual government info on this than About.com...

Here is the link again pls peruse at your convenience...

www.uspto.gov...


The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful”. The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.


And no it is not a distraction from the debate. You bought it up as an argument against thermate devices, I'm just trying to prove to you that it does matter that it was patented.
Acording to the law it must work as intended to get a patent...So again your argument has nothing to stand on.

[edit on 17/8/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   


the fact that no explosions could be heard, is actually quite a strong peice of evidence that there may have not been bombs in the building after all.


Are you kidding me have you not heard the countless fdny and witness testimony stating explosions that they heard throughout the building.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   


Are you kidding me have you not heard the countless fdny and witness testimony stating explosions that they heard throughout the building.


Explosion does not equal bomb, more things explode in a fire or sound like one, steel snapping, transformers blowing, cans exploding, ect...

A quick search turned up this.




Eye-witness and holidaymaker Mary Stewart reported hearing a huge explosion before seeing flames engulf the complex.

news.bbc.co.uk...

It's not uncommon to hear louds sounds in a fire. This is what a demolition sounds like. If there was any in the WTC buildings, everyone would have heard.
www.break.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

They don't consider something that demolitionists never use? Shocking. Incendiaries burn down, they could never take out a vertical core.


Wrong...try again. There is a thermite device (imagine that) that is PATENTED that burns horizontally. Please do your research better.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Just scanning this thread..but, you have the problem compounded by not only rigging charges, but now you have to clamp on some sort of bracket?? That just makes it more implausible.


Does it? How hard is it to attach a bracket to a column? I bet it takes a large amount of time? Really Vushta?

BTW, if you look at it from the stance of my theory, attaching brackets to the core columns wouldn't take alot of time at all.

I've only glanced at the thread myself so if I'm not talking about the same thing as you, I appologize.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Here is an interesting video I came across recently:

video.google.com...

It's from the TV show, The Screen Savers, which used to air on Tech TV.

In the clip, a computer is rigged with thermite, which is triggered by the flick of a switch. Details are not given on the show as to how this was assembled, but it goes to show that creative minds can put this substance to good use.

Anyone familiar with electronic components will be able to realize how easy it would be to make this device remote controlled, to make it require authorization via a code to initiate, to rig multiples of these devices together, etc. Simple electronics, once a functioning mechanism for the actual initiation has been created!


Thought I would share. The relevant part of the video is at 2:55.


PS -- Watch them try to put it out with water, just as water was unsuccessfully dumped onto the molten remains at the WTC. Water doesn't put thermite out. Just creates steam.


[edit on 17-8-2006 by bsbray11]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join